Until the European Public Prosecutor’s Office was set up, the competence for investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses against the financial interests of the EU in Romania belonged to the specialized anticorruption prosecution office, the DNA (National Anti-Corruption Directorate). The DNA looks back on 18 years of experience in tackling this type of criminality, which has resulted in a significant number of court decisions. An analysis carried out by the DNA in 2019, which was based on data obtained from convictions handed down during the period 2015-2018, brought to light the main typologies of EU fraud. The study revealed that the most frequently occurring cases of fraud concerned the claims for payment of agricultural subsidies and the implementation of projects with non-reimbursable financing. Most defendants involved in these cases operated in the private sector. However, even civil servants from the responsible authorities or mayors were also convicted for participating in EU … Read more

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) are the two investigative bodies at the EU level that together will effectively detect, investigate, and protect the EU’s financial interests by combining the strengths of an administrative investigation with those of a criminal investigative approach. This article outlines in concrete terms how this cooperation is being organised. It illustrates how both offices have been equipped to follow the trail of money irregularly spent on criminal organisations, fraudsters, and corrupt individuals. It also explains the links between the two offices, the new legal framework at the basis of their cooperation, and their operational relationship. Lastly, the authors give a preview of future challenges and opportunities, with a view to outlining improvements that will contribute to the common goal of both bodies: the protection of the EU’s financial interests.

This article reflects on the negotiations concerning Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (the “PIF Directive”) and discusses some of the controversial issues at that time from a criminal law policy perspective. Germany’s approach to the transposition of the PIF Directive is explained, and the article also presents the corresponding amendments made to the German Criminal Code as well as the provisions in the newly created Act to Strengthen the Protection of the EU‘s Financial Interests (EU-Finanzschutzstärkungsgesetz).

As part of its current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the European Union (EU) adopted a new Anti-Fraud Programme on 29 April 2021. It merges the support previously offered under the Hercule III Programme with the Anti-Fraud Information System. Both the increased MFF budget and the launch of a dedicated Customs Control Equipment Programme shift the focus of support under the new programme towards fighting expenditure fraud, including fraud related to the Recovery and Resilience Facility. This article provides an overview of the main features of the new Anti-Fraud Programme and compares it to the Hercule III Programme.

The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is a key initiative providing up to €723.8 billion in support of Europe’s economic and social recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. In light of the unprecedented scale and delivery mechanism of the Facility, the question arises as to how the European Union’s financial interests in the RRF will be protected against fraud and corruption? To answer this question, this article provides an analysis of the legal safeguards in the EU’s Regulation establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility for the protection of the EU’s financial interests. It also gives a practitioner’s view of the role of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the Commission’s assessment of the national recovery and resilience plans and describes the part OLAF will have during the upcoming implementation phase of the Facility. Ultimately, it is argued that the combined efforts of all actors will be needed to ensure that the … Read more

This article provides a summary of a recent Commission report on the implementation of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (the “PIF Directive”). This Directive, which is part of the Commission’s overall anti-fraud strategy, harmonises the definitions, sanctions, jurisdiction rules, and limitation periods related to fraud and other offences affecting the EU’s financial interests. A proper transposition of the PIF Directive by the Member States is necessary to enable the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (the “EPPO”) to conduct effective investigations and prosecutions. The Commission’s report contains a general and a specific article-by-article assessment of the transposition of the Directive. It concludes that, although all Member States have transposed the Directive, further action is needed to address outstanding compliance issues. These notably relate to the transposition of the definitions of criminal offences and the liability of – and sanctions … Read more